The Sex Myth: Why Everything We're Told Is Wrong (12 page)

Finally, and this is important, other reviews are criticised because the research ‘rests on moral assumptions . . . that are not adequately explained or justified’.

The problem with any study that assumes a universal standard for appropriateness is that such things are seldom universal. A viewpoint that fails to consider the past, the future, and even other
groups in the present is extremely parochial, and because of this, prone to error. What is sexualising and what is not is a matter of opinion, and it’s relative.

It’s worth remembering that once upon not so long a time ago, young people sitting at the dinner table was frowned upon.

This forms only a small part of the Scottish Executive report, however. Bigger sections are given over to retail product assessment, and child and parent interviews. In other words, original
research that goes beyond market surveys. The section on retailers sets guidelines to what products might be considered sexualising. These include products that make reference to sexual practices,
ones that imitate fashion items for adults, things that emphasise particular physical attributes, and so on. Interestingly, while there may be some room to criticise the definitions of what they
call ‘sexualising’, very little other research has been willing to state plainly what criteria it is using.

Of the thirty-two retailers, many did not seem to have sexualised items aimed towards children at all – Tesco, Debenhams, JJ Sports, Marks & Spencer among them.
There were some goods in other shops that might be described as ‘sexualised’, some of which appear to be aimed at children, but their prevalence was limited. Of course, sexual imagery
in consumer culture is widespread, and children do consume products surrounded by such imagery even if it is not aimed at them. But importantly, the research actually found very few such products
specifically aimed at children available from the major online retailers and on the high street.

The report then goes on to survey responses to the products. Focus groups of parents were consulted to discuss the items as well as their feelings about sexualisation.

What’s so important about asking parents and kids about their reactions to specific items? The fact that they are the people who know how these things are purchased and used in the real
world. There’s a difference between posing a hypothetical question, and actually having a real example to discuss. There’s a lot of discussion about the meaning of Playboy T-shirts and
the like in the media, but much of it is pure speculation.

There was a consensus among the parents in terms of hopes and beliefs about children’s innocence. But they differed in their interpretations of what was appropriate. Girls doing
‘sexy’ dance moves and wearing make-up was seen by some as having no ‘adult’ connotations, while for others, the same activities were ‘distasteful’.

A number of the parents saw similarities between their own and contemporary childhoods, about how they too had wanted to be ‘grown up’, and the peer pressure they had experienced.
One parent noted that ‘nothing’s changed really.’

Ideas about what was appropriate and what was not depended as much on subtext as on the content. One mother saw Playboy products as ‘grooming’ girls, but didn’t object to her
son’s poster of Jordan because Jordan was ‘doing it for herself’, not aiming at children, and is a ‘fellow single mother’.

They did not support the kind of unsubstantiated statements made in books like
The Porning of America
⁵⁶
such as ‘Bratz dolls fundamentally
redefine girlhood – and make many parents feel as if porn is
hunting their daughters.’ The reactions of the parents were far more measured in tone. ‘From an
adult point of view then the Bratz doll is more overtly sexy but I don’t think the kids see it that way . . .’ And rather than banning items they thought offensive, the parents felt
peer disapproval would suffice.

Much of the focus, it was agreed, was on girls. Parents tended to defend their own daughters as ‘sensible’, eschewing ‘inappropriate’ clothing. And if they did wear it,
it was for reasons other than sex: ‘It’s not like she’s about to have sex with somebody because she’s wearing thongs, it’s just a look,’ was one typical
response. They tended to feel that in context, both they and their children did understand what was appropriate and what was not.

Whether children do indeed analyse what they encounter critically – in context, and with a degree of sophistication about the media – was also considered in focus groups of young
people.

Many of the reports and books concerned with childhood sexuality are aimed strictly at adults, with their adult viewpoint; it makes sense to get some first-hand information about how children
actually perceive what they are exposed to.

Both the parents and children consulted in the Scottish report agreed that learning to make decisions about what was and what wasn’t appropriate was part of growing up, and that parents
help shape that. Children’s views of potentially sexualising products were very nuanced, and some of the responses unexpected. One of the girls commented, ‘I want something more grown
up rather than just like Playboy Bunnies. I just thought it was a bit childish.’ So, for her, the well-known symbol is associated not with being too ‘adult’, but actually the
opposite.

Children confirmed that it was not the opposite sex they were trying to impress by wearing fashionable items but that they wanted to look a certain way for their same-sex friends. Boys in
particular resisted the idea that they were impressed by girls who wear ‘sexy’ clothing and loads of make-up.

The kids consulted didn’t want to stand out, but rather blend in. In different schools and peer groups, what was considered the norm varied. In one peer group, wearing make-up was
considered unusual, while in another it was acceptable up to a point.

Young people’s active role was shown in their understanding of clothing and make-up having different meanings at different times. ‘[S]omething that might be
sexy to someone else might not be to others.’ They mentioned wearing more revealing clothing, or more make-up and accessories, to parties and discussed these as a way to have fun, that the
point was to enjoy themselves rather than gain sexual attention.

In several of the interviews the participants mentioned ‘playing at’ being older as part of growing up, when talking about themselves at a younger age. Girls trying out make-up or
hairstyles and boys wearing hair gel in primary school were considered experiments in advance of secondary school. They did it to find out ‘how much was too much’ or how to ‘get
it right’ before making those mistakes as a teenager. In other words, the children regarded those phases as a part of developing self-confidence and healthy sexuality.

It was considered appropriate not to display too much of the body or to attract attention through hair, make-up, and accessories, so wearing products the young people considered
‘sexual’ made the participants uncomfortable. One concern by the girls was the risk of appearing too much older and of having their reputations misjudged.

The Scottish Executive report is interesting because it attempts to address problems in studies like the Home Office reports. While only the result of a limited number of
interviews, it is a template for how to conduct research about sexualisation that is worth building on.

Do the results of the interviews in the Scottish Executive report seem surprising? They shouldn’t. A young girl wearing a short skirt does, and should, send a different signal from an
adult woman wearing a short skirt. An infant without a shirt at the beach is not the same as a woman going topless. Sometimes a young girl wears make-up because she’s trying to figure out how
it’s done. More make-up is more acceptable at parties than for every day. What’s more, young people know the difference. It is when we confuse outcome with intent that we lose sight of
this.

Analysis should always consider the context of the culture in which things are created. The violent and sexualised mythology of ancient Rome, for instance, was part of everyday life to them
– their myths
would be too shocking for most parents to tell as bedtime stories today. The things we create reflect our culture, upbringing, and assumptions. A good
report should acknowledge that much.

But it doesn’t always happen that way. Take one of the articles written in support of the Labour sexualisation report. ‘The woman is naked – or looks like she is. Only a
flesh-coloured leotard covers her body. Her long blonde hair tumbles down her back. She’s in a cage, sliding her fingers provocatively in and out of her mouth.’
⁵⁷

What’s being described? Not pornography, but a music video by the singer Shakira for ‘She Wolf’ – which happens to be about a woman longing for more passion in her
marriage. It’s not exactly being transmitted on CBeebies! By taking the image out of its context it’s easy to apply the worst possible interpretation to a song about appropriate adult
behaviour.

Context is everything, and kids are good judges of when someone has crossed the line. Imagining they have no such ability is a slippery slope that ends with all children at any age fully covered
from head to toe and the presumption that all adults have the capacity to become paedophiles. It makes even less sense than imagining that watching strippers turns men into rapists. (Of which more
later.)

There is a lot of conjecture about children, sexualisation, and violence. But there is no solid evidence to justify the grim and worrying pictures being pushed in virtually every media outlet of
youth gone wild. Instead, responsible research shows both parents and children aware of the dangers of too much too soon. And while fashions in music, clothes, and entertainment may have changed,
the pressures and concerns of childhood have not.

Really, the best solutions are often common-sense solutions. There is a danger of taking things too far. Policy should leave choices to the good sense of families and carers. And when research
actually bothers to ask the parents and children what they think, that is something on which they agree.

The Scottish Executive’s conclusions open the door to a reevaluation of our assumptions about sexualised material. But whether or not this will happen is still up in the air.

In 2011, a sex education bill proposed by MP Nadine Dorries
⁵⁸
passed its first reading in the Commons. To sum up, she thinks girls
(and girls only) between the ages of thirteen and sixteen should be given lessons specifically on the benefits of abstinence.

Now, putting aside the problems with suggesting girls exclusively need instruction on sexual morality, let’s think about this. Abstinence is fine and even good. I myself happily waited
until the age of sixteen (and not very many moments longer) before having sex. The problem is, not everyone ends up abstaining, so good-quality sex ed – which is not mandatory in this country
– is ideal. And let’s not forget, sex ed has a lot it can offer besides just pregnancy and STI avoidance. Exploring issues around relationship preparedness, sexuality, self-confidence,
and loads more can and should be part of comprehensive, well-designed SRE (sex and relationships education).

While there was a considerable amount of outrage in response to the bill from people concerned about SRE, more than a few counselled that we shouldn’t worry – after all, the
antisex, anti-abortion stance endorsed by Dorries has more in common with far-right American teen morality movements than with British sensibilities. Such a ‘daft’ bill couldn’t
possibly pass, surely? The kind of rabid conservative agenda that plays so well on the other side of the Atlantic couldn’t possibly last here, could it?

Actually, the rabid right-wing agenda is already here. And if the life cycle of other government fancies such as the internet opt-in proposal is any indication, the transplant of American
hyperconservatism to UK shores seems to be doing just fine.

This voguish concern about children and sexualisation is a well-trod path with a predictable outcome. Back in 1970, US president Lyndon Johnson set up a commission to examine the effects of
pornography. One of its stated aims was to study ‘[t]he effects of such material, particularly on youth, and their relationship to crime and other antisocial conduct’.

The final report,
Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography
, concluded that ‘empirical investigation provided no evidence that exposure to or use of explicit sexual
materials plays a significant role in the causation of social or individual harm.’

Unfortunately by the time the report was released, the US had a new president, Richard Nixon. Rather than evaluate the evidence on its objective merit, Nixon instead released a statement
declaring, ‘I
have evaluated that report and categorically reject its morally bankrupt conclusions.’
⁵⁹

The US Senate overwhelmingly backed Nixon’s statement over the facts, voting 60–5 to support the president’s opinion of the findings (thirty-four senators abstained from
voting). And so politics, for neither the first nor the last time in a government administration, prevailed over truth.

4

I
t sounds like a joke from a Christmas cracker: what do Pacific islanders and lap dancing have in common?

At first glance, not a lot. The real connection started over sixty years ago, as World War II came to an end.

The islands of Melanesia, north and east of Australia, include the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, and Fiji. Because of the location, Melanesia was strategically important in the
Pacific arena during the war. Occupation of the islands by various combatants was inevitable.

The conflict had brought millions of troops to the Pacific. Along with them came the most technologically advanced martial systems yet seen. For the Pacific islanders, it was an exciting and
baffling time.